"This article explores some of the greatest grant opportunities
through the Department of Energy (the “DOE”) and explains the basics on
how to apply for and obtain these grants:" HERE.
[ ] What was the initial communication from ARPA-E to the AWE community?
~JoeF
Congress last December of 2010 or earlier gave ARPA-E the ability to fund prize
competitions. What is the evidence for this?
~JoeF
Who else in ARPA-E besides Matt Dunne
is concerning with the AWE competition?
~JoeF
Timeline:
December 2010: Congress does something that allows competition
prizes to be awarded. [ ]
Reference?
Toward prizes... from 2003: HERE.
"innovation inducement prizes” "The scientific and technological
goals for federally-funded innovation inducement prizes include the full
spectrum of research, development, testing, demonstration, and
deployment."
[ ] What was the first
communication from ARPA-E regarding the contest?
Matthew Dunne, counsel, converses with Dimitri
May 9, 2010:
"Although ARPA-E has not issued
an AWT funding opportunity announcement," See:
M3536
May 9, 2011:
In one communication, there is not a mention of a competition.
Does this have anything to do with the competition?
Mr. Santos,
Thank you for your email. I oversee ARPA-E's evaluation and selection
of unsolicited proposals, so I can assure you that the same, unbiased
merit review process is used for all unsolicited proposals. Selection
determinations are not based on how "well connected" the applicant is.
Accordingly, you may wish to consider submitting an unsolicited
proposal for any potentially transformational and disruptive energy
technologies.
Kind regards,
Matt Dunne
Acting Chief Counsel, ARPA-E
May 26, 2011
[[ This is M3598
]]
Thanks to Dave Santos' sense of injustice and persistence,
followed up by some
conversation here, ARPA-E wants to sponsor and fund an AWE
competition of "our"
design. (This is one of those rare "be careful what you ask for"'
moments in
life.).
I finally connected with ARPA-E's acting chief counsel, Matt
Dunne. They will
not provide development funds but were granted by Congress last
December the
ability to fund prize competitions. AWE would be their first.
Normal ARPA-E
funding restrictions apply - found on their website.
The monkey is now on our backs to design the competition and
define the prize(s)
which could be cash, contracts, additional funding opps, etc..
They don't want
to see our proposal until it's pretty well finalized. I suggested
we could get
it done before the end of the summer.
They're also looking for a program manager for AWE... if you know
of anyone
suited for the position...
I think we should start by defining what AWE system milestone(s)
and
characteristics would clearly distinguish commercially viable
contenders, then
come up with a way to have an independent third party (NASA?)
verify the
performance of the contenders.
I'm hopeful that a public announcement of the competition by
ARPA-E in early
fall, will provide the legitimacy we've been waiting for which
will push some
investors off the fence and get them to take out their checkbooks.
Let the discussion begin.
- Dimitri Cherny
Highest Wind LLC
801.810.5709
ARPA-E prize competition
Thanks to Dave Santos' sense of injustice and persistence, followed
up by some conversation here, ARPA-E wants to sponsor and fund an
AWE competition of "our"...
Re: ARPA-E prize competition
Great News, Dimitri, Â Dave Lang is clearly our most qualified &
experienced candidate for an ARPA-EÂ AWE R&D Manager & we could
hand over the US...
Re: ARPA-E prize competition
Hey Dave, just to be sure you read it correctly. ARPA-E will
provide no money upfront. A prize or prizes (our choice and our
design with their agreement) will...
Re: ARPA-E prize competition
Requiring 95% flight time makes this more of a gamble on the
weather or a hunt for locations than a technical contest. Given
that takeoffs and landings are...
Re: ARPA-E prize competition
Hey Bob, For that phase of the contest I was thinking NASA's
Wallops might be used. Maybe winds would only allow some lower
percentage but I think we all get...
Re: ARPA-E prize competition
I think we should be careful about rules that presuppose structure
or operational details. For example, requiring 30 days of
"continuous operation" might want...
Re: ARPA-E prize competition
Some AWECS concepts without tether to ground: Buoyancy-changing
<http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/4MHiTfNLeV0ObzHE0ket1Kq5duJLxyf-WE2fxgcmEg\
...
Re: ARPA-E prize competition
Dimitri, While I too applaud DaveS for rattling the ARPA-E cage,
it is rather lame that ARPA-E laid $3M on Makani to go "do their
thing" while the rest of us...
Re: ARPA-E prize competition
Hey Dave, sounds like you need a beer. I agree it's pretty lame by
comparison but it's still recognition by the US government that
our nascent industry is...
Re: ARPA-E prize competition
... Dimitre, Ha, well you're probably right about that, in fact I
think it's about "Beer:30 pm" right now :-) Seriously though, I
agree with you, "something is...
ARPA-E prize competition in two phases?
New thread to keep this cleaner. Ideally we'd like to get as many
good AWE ideas some funding and then thin that field with more
rigorous requirements....
Re: ARPA-E prize competition
We can make this work, but there are essentials to ensure. Science
must not be compromised by venture or government externalities.
Academia could provide the...
[ ] But maybe more time will be
needed than the end of summer. ~JoeF
[ ] What will it take for the AWE community to finalize a fine
description of a competition?
~JoeF
Discussion begins in AWE community.Many issues begin to be
placed on the table. ~JoeF
Three in AWE community seem to form an-apparently off-radar
inputting-to-ARPA-E working group as AWE wider community seems to have
not the bridge anticipated by some. GrantC, PJ,
DimitriC. ~JoeF [ ] What are the full
communications with ARPA-E so far? ~JoeF
[ ] Three is inadequate representation from a stakeholders list that is
over 700 persons. ~JoeF
[ ] Are early ARPA-E contacts having any unfair influence over the
design of the competition? ~JoeF
ARPA-E AWE Competition (Academia)
It is proposed that academia can best fulfill the essential
third-party validation role in the upcoming ARPA-E AWE Evaluation
Program ("contest"). The agency...
Re: ARPA-E AWE Competition (Academia)
African : Unilag LASU OSUTECH NOUN ........ Â John AdeoyeÂ
Oyebanji  B.Sc. MCPN Managing Consultant & CEO Hardensoft
International Limited An ICT,...
Re: ARPA-E AWE Competition (Academia)
If academia is so smart, why don't they just design the winning
system themselves? ... Also: Could a Delfts, for example, be
unbiased since they are a player? ...
Re: ARPA-E AWE Competition (Academia)
Doug, Academia can in fact "solve AWE" given time & support.
Letting academia vett the venture concepts with ARPA-E support
will go a long way to getting...
Re: ARPA-E AWE Competition (Academia)
Sounds good Dave S. I hope you know that comment about the
academic institutions inventing it themselves was tongue-in-cheek.
But I DO remember running the...
June and July 2011:
Dave Santos enters some key points that seem important to the success of
a competition. More: ~JoeF July 6, 2011 or July 7:
Dimitri said the dough is in the oven and baking. ~JoeF
July 7, 2011:
Complaints are stated in AWE community forum.
~JoeF
July 7, 2011:
Dave Santos is preparing a more formal statement about related matters.
~JoeF
July 7, 2011:
MattD invited to help bring this working file up to speed on related
matters. ~JoeF
July 8, 2011:
DougS suggests "output over time" be in the challenge.
More: M3822Nearly alternatively, he suggests strong excitement could arrive
from a "concerted R&D" effort. ~JoeF
July 8, 2011: RobertC
suggests early stage and later stage of a contest.
More: M3824
July 8, 2011:
"To summarize basic requirements already proposed, but
badly neglected by the insider process:"
M3817 Outline by DaveS
ARPA-E Contest Concerns
It was proposed on this forum that three months be a reasonable
window to design for ARPA-E a superb AWE contest that would result
in a bonanza of scientific...
Re: ARPA-E Contest Concerns
JoeF, thanks for collecting all AWE Contest information in an open
format. To summarize basic requirements already proposed, but
badly neglected by the insider...
Re: ARPA-E Contest Concerns
I must admit I am drawing a blank on what form any such contest
could take. Normally I am full of ideas on any subject, but on
this I come up with nothing. ...
Re: ARPA-E Contest Concerns
Then again, even a number might not help. Choosing a big (to us)
number, say a Megawatt-hour generated within a single 24-hour
period, would favor the...
Re: ARPA-E Contest Concerns
... The X-prize may not have been the main factor, but it helped
seed the formation of Virgin Galactic. One of the advantages of
Cambridge is that high-flyers...
Re: X-prize madness
Yes, it is no less than insanity to be BLASTING OFF into space,
when we could be FLOATING to space. Have you studied what comes
out of the tail pipe of the...
Re: ARPA-E Contest Concerns
Dave S., I gather from this that you think there is still a
fighting chance of getting ARPA-E to see things your way despite
your earlier message about it...
July 16, 2011
ARPA-E AWE "Orteig Prize" Model
A key clue has finally been released about the ARPA-E position in
the private negociation: The Feds want us to model the AWE Contest
after the Orteig Prize....
Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
DaveS, If it sets your mind at ease, I can say, that even though
my name seemed to have been included on some "secret list", it in
no way meant that I (nor...
Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
We have exciting work to do to prepare a professional input to
ARPA-E There may be something missing in this log of effort to
date, such as the work indicated...
Sept. 4,
2010 See:
M4112 for Sept.
4, 2010, continuation of AWE Community preparation for community
open input to ARPA-E:
The initially open ARPA-E AWE Contest design process, with input
invited from the R&D community, was hijacked. In a familiar pattern,
even with some of the same actors, a public AWE deliberation
process quietly became a private effort to rig an outcome to favor
certain players. A still largely unknown group (a secret list
exists) got to participate, but Dimitri and PJ were seemingly at the
fore. To their credit, Makani declined participation, and WindLift
even blew the whistle on crass backroom contest scheming.
Not a single suggestion bearing on safety, fairness, or science was
forwarded to ARPA-E! The only materials provided were a crude prize
distribution formula and the still secret list of AWE players; all
submitted in haste, with no public oversight. The
self-appointed insiders badly failed a duty to
properly represent our R&D community. I am upset that this harm was
done in our names, but without our knowledge.
Its our job to fix this mess. Lets shine full light on the hidden
dealings and correct the record, particularly noting to ARPA-E
that the failed submission did not at all represent the
great expertise offered. Lets make corrections, fill omissions, and
add new merit. ARPA-E has put brakes on the railroaded process, adding
another three months or so to complete contest design due-diligence,
so we have time to make good. Under close public attention and with
less haste, the high professional standards and openness can drive
resubmission.
Please help going forward to keep AWE honest. If
you have further input to the Contest Design development process,
forward it soon; it will be respected.
~DaveS
Sept. 4, 2011 to Matt Dunne from JoeF
from Joe Faust
Editor@upperwindpower.com
to"matthew.dunneiii"
date Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:09 PM
subject AWE Community
Sir,
Each stakeholder of the nascent airborne wind energy community is
recommended to be fully respected in the growth and evolution of the AWE
industry:
http://energykitesystems.net/AWEstakeholders/index.html
Feel free to contact any stakeholder.
Lift to you and yours,
Joe Faust
Mr. Dunne,
As you probably know, our list is ever incomplete. If you have
stakeholders not on the list, you are welcome to inform me and I will
expand the list. Thank you for any inputs.
Lift,
Joe Faust
Sept. 4,
2011: A summary of this page at the date was posted in AWE
Community forum.
[ ] We await copy of work done by
others that may have been sent to ARPA-E to represent the AWE
community. TIA for timely inputs, so we all may advance well
with transparency.
~JoeF
Aspects being considered:
(please send notes)
National or international? [MattD
has considerable international rub and might address the potential of
internationalizing the contest.]
Capitalization of worthy workers?
Capitalization-bias?
Role of academics?
Validators? third-party
validation role
Categories?
Technical descriptions?
Safety?
Launching and landing?
Testing
Analysis of a performance
COTS and aerostation quickies regardless
of ROI?
Sites?
Observers?
What will success look like?
Prize descriptions?
Equity?
Getting the most value out of the
taxpayers' investment over the AWE energy direction?
Will the contest positively accelerate RAD or slow RAD?
Will training and aiming to meet contest rules hamper creativity or
encourage creativity?
How will the taxpayers get the most for their buck from the
contest?
Note2010round3million
Will the total prize budget be less than or same as or
more than what
has been ARPA-E forwarded for AWE already? What has been ARPA-E forwarded
to AWE players to date?
Perhaps an early stage and later stage
of the contest?
Eliminating historical bias
"Keep the rules simple and never
forget that the final objective is cheap wind power."
RobertC
Team identification
Avoiding windluck bias.
Qualifying contestants
Scoring matrix
ROI
Data production
Direct fly-offs for leading performers
at same site?
Environmental impact of contest and
participant activity
